Who is at fault?

1874

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

OP is in wrong lane to exit roundabout.
A lot of roundabouts are marked incorrectly.
They are a series of left hand junctions

Junction rules.
Exit from the left lane only
Like any junction, the left lane can be used to continue ie stay on the roundabout.
It is a lane, like any other lane and OP can not "cut across" - same rules as any lane he or she will use

Wrong, otherwise how does the offside lane in a roundabout ever get used, you cant just drive around the entire roundabout in the nearside/outer lane.
Very concerning, but unsurprising people think like this.
The main thing to take from this is, people should not go around the entire roundabout in the outer lane, fearing going to the inner lane I think because they dont know how to use a roundabout and concerned they wont get back out to be able to exit it, christ on a bike!

grogi wrote: »

But in this case the Blue could enter and drive 100 m without interfering with the op's Red. It was only when Red suddenly decided to cut across a traffic lane the danger occured.

This did not occur from whats been posted it seems, and I doubt they could have moved 100m in indistance, and if so, how did the other car pass the OP? overtake from the nearside lane barrelling around the outside of the OP?
Youre saying the OP started out first, could move 100m (a distance I dont think even is available there) and was overtaken by Blue in the outside lane.
For a start, this isnt what was described to have occurred, next if that occured then Blue would be overtaking in the outer lane, should not happen unless traffic was so busy as to be stationary or moving much slower on the offside/inner lane.

Mitch Connor

TheChizler wrote: »

Looks like you crossed a broken lane marking to exit, in general on any road you give way to people already in their lane. A roundabout doesn't change that IMO. This is made worse by them not following the normal convention.

Imagine they had entered the roundabout from 9 o'clock. You would be in the exact same positions but they would much more clearly be in the right.

You give way to traffic already on the round about - if they entered from 9 and cut across the OP they would 100% be at fault.

IMO, having driven this round about many times from multiple directions, the OP is fine. I'd be annoyed with the other driver if they cut across the round about exit like that.

_Kaiser_

Isambard wrote: »

he didn't do that at all, he was in one of the two correct lanes to go straight on. The other car was in the incorrect lane to be going one exit further.

This is so clearly the case, that it makes me wonder about the general standard of people's driving. Whoever taught you to drive? (answer : No one, they just sat in and drove on a Provisional)

Or they were taught by an instructor who until relatively recently didn't have to have any particular qualifications as far as I remember.

It's like the argument about slow traffic moving briefly into the hard shoulder to allow other traffic to pass. Perfectly legal (and courteous) but another one that goes around in circles here. Or the undertaking on motorways arguments (not acceptable unless in crawling traffic and incredibly dangerous at normal speeds).

As you say, it's no wonder there's so many incidents on the roads when so many people haven't even got a firm grasp of the rules in the first place.

Shefwedfan

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Or they were taught by an instructor who until relatively recently didn't have to have any particular qualifications as far as I remember.

It's like the argument about slow traffic moving briefly into the hard shoulder to allow other traffic to pass. Perfectly legal (and courteous) but another one that goes around in circles here. Or the undertaking on motorways arguments (not acceptable unless in crawling traffic and incredibly dangerous at normal speeds).

As you say, it's no wonder there's so many incidents on the roads when so many people haven't even got a firm grasp of the rules in the first place.

I have a firm grasp


It is my rules....end of story

TheChizler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You give way to traffic already on the round about - if they entered from 9 and cut across the OP they would 100% be at fault.

Not necessarily, they could enter at exactly the same moment in time but if they were going different speeds end up at the same exit together, with red wanting to continue past the OP. This could easily happen if the other car was in slow moving traffic but the OP had a clear run at the roundabout so was travelling much faster.

You have to treat each situation as it comes IMO, the law doesn't make reference to the previous maneuer you make, it deals with each one individually. There's no law saying 'well you must exit here if previously you entered here'. It's a non-causal system, your current state, or action, does not depend on previous actions.

How this works here is there is a guy on your left who you should be watching, especially when your lane doesn't guide you off the roundabout. I wouldn't assume someone will do what you expect based on stale information.

seamus

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

A lot of roundabouts are marked incorrectly.

Roundabouts cannot be "marked incorrectly".

Where road markings conflict with the default rules, the road markings override the default rules. That's the law.

If you ignore the road markings and go with what you think is correct, then you are wrong.

1874

I think this will go the 70 pages alright, you dont go around the roundabout in the outside lane though


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rsdaSTOkWk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR-iuHWxbh0



Turning right, take the right lane, you can go straight from the right lane, and both these examples show that going straight is allowed from the right lane, observe signs/markings and pay heed to idiots

Neamhshuntasach

It's unbelievable that so many people have said the OP is wrong. No wonder I can't help laughing at the state of driving here while I pass through a majority of roundabouts.

In a 2 lane roundabout without any signage or road markings stating that the right hand lane is a right turn only. You can proceed what is typically referred to as going "straight" (2nd exit or 12 o clock). Once there are 2 lanes on approach and through the roundabout. It doesn't even matter if the exit the OP took is a single lane. You can proceed straight through. Obviously watching out for traffic in the left hand lane as a car could have joined at your first exit in left lane and caught up with you. In that case, he is entitled to take what would be your 3rd exit, but is his 2nd.

But as in OP's case, they both joined from the same exit. I would never take a 3rd exit on a roundabout in the left hand lane unless there were specific road markings allowing such. In absence of them. I would always be in right hand lane.

The car in the left lane was impeding his progress by being in the incorrect lane. If i was in the right hand lane and entitled to take 2nd exit or go straight. And there was a car beside me in the left lane and we both moved off the same time. But when we came to the 2nd exit and I indicated off it but he tried to continue past that exit. I would be 100% seeing him in the wrong. He should not be there if he is passing his 2nd exit or 12 o clock. I wouldn't be driving into him as I always aware of idiots on the road. But the OP didn't crash into him either. Presumably because he used caution while exiting.

GreeBo

seamus wrote: »

Roundabouts cannot be "marked incorrectly".

Where road markings conflict with the default rules, the road markings override the default rules. That's the law.

If you ignore the road markings and go with what you think is correct, then you are wrong.

what about when the road markings conflict with the road signage?

TheChizler

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

But as in OP's case, they both joined from the same exit. I would never take a 3rd exit on a roundabout in the left hand lane unless there were specific road markings allowing such. In absence of them. I would always be in right hand lane.

The car in the left lane was impeding his progress by being in the incorrect lane. If i was in the right hand lane and entitled to take 2nd exit or go straight. And there was a car beside me in the left lane and we both moved off the same time. But when we came to the 2nd exit and I indicated off it but he tried to continue past that exit. I would be 100% seeing him in the wrong. He should not be there if he is passing his 2nd exit or 12 o clock. I wouldn't be driving into him as I always aware of idiots on the road. But the OP didn't crash into him either. Presumably because he used caution while exiting.

How do you conflate that with the Road Traffic Act 1997 section 8? (It may be supersceded but the law hasn't changed)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article8 wrote:

(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

xabi

Anyone who thinks the OP was wrong should hand in their licence and take a bus.

seamus

GreeBo wrote: »

what about when the road markings conflict with the road signage?

My understanding is that it gets more complicated, but in general traffic signs & signals would take precedence

Any road sign that tells you what you *must* do (or not do), takes priority over indicative signs.

So, for example, if the lane markings indicated that you can go straight or right in this lane, but a road sign said, "No right turn", then you cannot go right.

However, if you're in a lane that says, "Left turn only" and the traffic light shows a solid green (as opposed to an arrow), then you cannot go straight or left in that lane, you can still only go left.

So in short

"Must do" Signs > "Must do" markings > "May do" signs > "May do" markings > Default rules

grogi

Isambard wrote: »

he didn't do that at all, he was in one of the two correct lanes to go straight on. The other car was in the incorrect lane to be going one exit further.

You're wrong. The dashed line markings are clear - you cannot exit the rb when you're going in the right lane. Unless you can reliably demonstrate tunnelling, it is physically impossible.

Are you seriously saying that the blue is in the right here?!



or here?

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

You're wrong. The dashed line markings are clear - you cannot exit the rb when you're going in the right lane.

You can but only when it's safe and you do all your checks, cross the lane legally etc. So not when red is there basically!

grogi

TheChizler wrote: »

You can but only when it's safe and you do all your checks, cross the lane legally etc. So not when red is there basically!

Technically you can't You first get into the left lane, and only then you exit.

But that is just beyond being annoying ;P

rex-x

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

63 people as of this morning are wrong.

2 lanes on approach, 2 lanes on the roundabout, 2 lanes off it at the exit the OP took.

OP was perfectly entitled to exit as they did. Other car was in the wrong here, but the fact that so many people here think the same as the above poster is why situations like this arise in the first place.

I'm genuinely curious, is there any legal backing to this two lanes off two lanes on can use right lane for straight ahead business?

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

Technically you can't You first get into the left lane, and only then you exit.

But that is just beyond being annoying ;P

Damn logic!

ppn

XsApollo wrote: »

If there are no markings on the roundabout.
I would say red is wrong and blue is definatley wrong.
By Red using the inside lane you open yourself up to someone doing that.
If you were in the outside lane you wouldn’t be in that position.
Blue is wrong full stop.

Me I use the left lane if my exit is 12 o clock or before and the righ lane for anything else.

Everyday at a more basic roundabout than this (left, straight on or right), I see people (complete and utter idiots) pulling the manoeuvre of the blue driver here. In fact, it is happening more often that to the point that you can have both drivers side by side (one in the inside lane and one in the outside lane) and both drivers are taking the right turn or third exit, with one having to give way to avoid a collision.

How does using the outside lane to take the third exit even make sense to the people who do this? By that logic the inside lane is only for taking the fourth exit (i.e. going back from where you originally came from!!) So frustrating how careless some people have become on the roads...(no indicators, no lights at dusk, pulling out in front of oncoming traffic, driving over the white line especially at bends, texting....). Aaaaaagh
I think the RSA need to take more responsibility in the media for warning motorists on the use of roundabouts and indicators for starters...

ppn

1874 - Completely agree with the statement you made here:

Wrong, otherwise how does the offside lane in a roundabout ever get used, you cant just drive around the entire roundabout in the nearside/outer lane. Very concerning, but unsurprising people think like this.

1874

rex-x wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious, is there any legal backing to this two lanes off two lanes on can use right lane for straight ahead business?

See ppn's last post, and mine a few pages back with links to RSA youtube

grogi wrote: »

You're wrong. The dashed line markings are clear - you cannot exit the rb when you're going in the right lane. Unless you can reliably demonstrate tunnelling, it is physically impossible.

Are you seriously saying that the blue is in the right here?!



or here?

Thats a different scenario and does not suggests a roundabout, you're mixing up the colours of the cars too and it confuses who was who, on a roundabout you cannot just go all the way around the outside. Look at the RSA links provided

rex-x

1874 wrote: »

See ppn's last post, and mine a few pages back with links to RSA youtube

The RSA have nothing to do with the law and their advice is often inaccurate at best, so the two posts you mention don't really answer anything. Thats why I was wondering was there anything in the statute to back up the straight ahead in right lane scenario.

1874

rex-x wrote: »

The RSA have nothing to do with the law and their advice is often inaccurate at best, so the two posts you mention don't really answer anything. Thats why I was wondering was there anything in the statute to back up the straight ahead in right lane scenario.

well thanks for that, but I dispute that my posts dont answer, I appreciate your statement regarding the RSA, I may not agree with everything they say, but I dispute what you say, ie that they have nothing to do with the law, If you have an example of their inaccurate advice, perhaps you could post it here so we can all see that and agree on it here, Id be happy to see some.


They have authorisation under the Road Safety Authority Act 2006.
so they do have something to do with the law.
Common sense should apply, in that some system has to be arrived at, agreed and that carried out by the users of the facility (ie the drivers of vehicles on the roads).
Ive read that the rules of the road are just guidelines of an interpretation of the road traffic acts, otherwise what would the alternative be? have people reading the acts to understand how to behave on the road? Thats not practical, it would probably increase problems as no one would read Acts to learn how to drive, they'd most likely just ignore them.


The RSA are authorised, they provide interpretations of the Road traffic acts to give guidance on how to drive, there is a post just recently showing how to drive around roundabouts, my own with youtube clips, one from the RSA.

rex-x

1874 wrote: »

well thanks for that, but I dispute that my posts dont answer, I appreciate your statement regarding the RSA, I may not agree with everything they say, but I dispute what you say, ie that they have nothing to do with the law, If you have an example of their inaccurate advice, perhaps you could post it here so we can all see that and agree on it here, Id be happy to see some.


They have authorisation under the Road Safety Authority Act 2006.
so they do have something to do with the law.
Common sense should apply, in that some system has to be arrived at, agreed and that carried out by the users of the facility (ie the drivers of vehicles on the roads).
Ive read that the rules of the road are just guidelines of an interpretation of the road traffic acts, otherwise what would the alternative be? have people reading the acts to understand how to behave on the road? Thats not practical, it would probably increase problems as no one would read Acts to learn how to drive, they'd most likely just ignore them.


The RSA are authorised, they provide interpretations of the Road traffic acts to give guidance on how to drive, there is a post just recently showing how to drive around roundabouts, my own with youtube clips, one from the RSA.

What I mean is that the advice of the RSA and their documentation wouldn't have legal standing. If they post something in contravention to the statute then its not a defence to say the RSA said it was ok etc, of course they need certain authorisations to do their job.

I don't disagree that there does need to be an easy to follow interpretation as they are providing as opposed to just miles of statute for everyone to read.

Its more a curiosity I have with regards to the straight in right lane, the RSA advice posted is a bit ambiguous only allowing it when a queue is in the left lane and they are indicating left also, I was just more curious if anyone had come across the actual statute section relating to this behaviour?

And to be clear i'm not rooting for one way or the other, its just a curiosity

TheChizler

1874 wrote: »

See ppn's last post, and mine a few pages back with links to RSA youtube






Thats a different scenario and does not suggests a roundabout, you're mixing up the colours of the cars too and it confuses who was who, on a roundabout you cannot just go all the way around the outside. Look at the RSA links provided

I know plenty of roundabouts that look like that, including the one in the OP. Legally what's the difference between a roundabout and a curvy one-way road?

blackbox

Wouldn't it be great if cars had flashing lights on each side and there was a standard protocol for when to switch them on so that people could indicate their intentions. It ought to prevent situations like this.

But I guess it would never work!

1874

TheChizler wrote: »

I know plenty of roundabouts that look like that, including the one in the OP. Legally what's the difference between a roundabout and a curvy one-way road?

Well I think thats attempting to be pedantic, saying there isnt a difference, but really a roundabout is identified as being such, and by signs, so there is a difference. If people need a legal interpretation to help them drive along a curvy road, then they probably need to hand in their licence for the safety of all. Regardless of that, the OP identified the place as a roundabout, not a curvy road, later comments comparing to any other situation arent relevant. You dont go around a roundabout all the way in the outer lane.

ofcork

Nearly happened to me at the dunkettle rbout in cork coming from east in rh lane car in lh lane wanted to go towards glanmire luckily I saw him and he me both stopped and I went after some horn blowing.

Rubberchikken

whats most worrying is how so many drivers treatbroundabouts so differently.
whether its down to how people see the rules of the road or how drivers are being taught, i really dont know *sigh*

grogi

1874 wrote: »

They have authorisation under the Road Safety Authority Act 2006.

They have authorisation to do what? Is RSA a court, so the ruling forms a precedent?!

Ive read that the rules of the road are just guidelines of an interpretation of the road traffic acts, otherwise what would the alternative be? have people reading the acts to understand how to behave on the road? Thats not practical, it would probably increase problems as no one would read Acts to learn how to drive, they'd most likely just ignore them.

Yes, exactly. Ignorantia juris non excusat

grogi

1874 wrote: »

Well I think thats attempting to be pedantic, saying there isnt a difference, but really a roundabout is identified as being such, and by signs, so there is a difference. If people need a legal interpretation to help them drive along a curvy road, then they probably need to hand in their licence for the safety of all. Regardless of that, the OP identified the place as a roundabout, not a curvy road, later comments comparing to any other situation arent relevant. You dont go around a roundabout all the way in the outer lane.

What, according to any law you can quote or any precedent from this country, is the difference in rules when driving on a bend road and a roundabout? The sole fact of it being called differently does not constitute a different behaviour and rules.